Kate Kelly On Tribtalk On 9/11

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58398209-71/sltrib-com-kelly-women.html.csp

In a recent Tribune op-ed column, Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly says there is common ground among Mormon feminists and that she embraces all efforts to address gender inequality within the LDS Church.

On Thursday at 12:15 p.m., Kelly joins Jennifer Napier-Pearce to talk about what she sees as incremental steps toward equity, life after excommunication and the future of Ordain Women.

Watch this online video chat at sltrib.com. You can also join the discussion by sending questions and comments to the hashtag #TribTalk on Twitter and Google+ or texting 801-609-8059.

jnpearce@sltrib.com

Twitter: @jnpearce

I think I've said enough about Kate Kelly, so I will not be listening to or commenting on this interview. However, I hope someone else can.

Thanks,

-Smac

[VideoGameJunkie]

She should spend 9/11 remembering the heroes and victims, not bashing the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not that it will be relevant to anything she has to say, but I predict Mountain Meadows Massacre will come up in the discussion and will be used to bash the Church of Jesus Christ, as that is the anniversary date of the event.

[Guest]

Not that it will be relevant to anything she has to say, but I predict Mountain Meadows Massacre will come up in the discussion and will be used to bash the Church of Jesus Christ, as that is the anniversary date of the event.

Wonderful, I forgotten that tidbit...it would have to be on that day.

[JLHPROF]

I really don't know why we care what she has to say.  She has joined a long line of apostates who refused to follow council or Church doctrine and were excommunicated for it.

Listening to her is no different than immersing ourselves in the writings of the Tanners, the Toscanos, Ed Decker, while trying to build our faith and serve God.  Counterproductive.

 

Kate Kelly is a historical curiosity to be sure, but hardly one worth our time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I missed the memo that men and women were equal in everything.  Where is that written?

[Paddy]

Kate Kelly has become irrelevant by attempting to be relevant. It's sad because I suspect she would have had a lot to contribute had she taken I wiser tact.

[JLHPROF]

I missed the memo that men and women were equal in everything.  Where is that written?

 

I also missed the memo that said equality = sameness.  Men and women ARE different, and not just biologically.  Simple truth.

[Jeanne]

Amazing..tomorrow is the eleventh right?  She hasn't said a word yet...and already she is put down.  Must be okay for you guys to do this??

 

Jeanne

[Guest]

Amazing..tomorrow is the eleventh right?  She hasn't said a word yet...and already she is put down.  Must be okay for you guys to do this??

 

Jeanne

OK for us to do what? Painting with a really broad brush are you not?

[Teancum]

I missed the memo that men and women were equal in everything.  Where is that written?

I missed the memo that said they are not equal. Where is that written?

[Senator]

Amazing..tomorrow is the eleventh right?  She hasn't said a word yet...and already she is put down.  Must be okay for you guys to do this??

 

Jeanne

 

You're witnessing how one becomes a "hiss and a byword".

[JLHPROF]

I missed the memo that said they are not equal. Where is that written?

 

Ephesians 5:22-23

²² Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

[sunstoned]

Ephesians 5:22-23

²² Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

I am thinking that it is probable that Paul was a reflecting the culture of his time.  Just like when he said women should remain silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34), or that women should keep their heads covered (1 Cor 11:6).  The NT also states that women and should not be permitted to teach (1 Tim 2:11-15).  These are just a few misogynistic teachings that the modern church has ignored (and rightly so).  Women in first century Judea were not only discriminated against, they were brutalized. 

 

The danger in reading the Bible like it is a auto repair manual is that these misogynistic ideas are carried forward.  The proof of this can be seen in many of the fundie christian churches.

[JLHPROF]

I am thinking that it is probable that Paul was a reflecting the culture of his time.  Just like when he said women should remain silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34), or that women should keep their heads covered (1 Cor 11:6).  The NT also states that women and should not be permitted to teach (1 Tim 2:11-15).  These are just a few misogynistic teachings that the modern church has ignored (and rightly so).  Women in first century Judea were not only discriminated against, they were brutalized. 

 

The danger in reading the Bible like it is a auto repair manual is that these misogynistic ideas are carried forward.  The proof of this can be seen in many of the fundie christian churches.

 

I think the danger of taking this subjective tack to scripture is we put ourselves in danger of losing the doctrine that led to the scripture.  I certainly don't believe women are "inferior" to men but I believe that the scriptures are pretty clear about gender roles and who is the head of the family, and it appears to be patterned on how Heavenly Father operates based on every piece of evidence we have.

The simple evidence points to the fact that whatever equality men and women share, Heavenly Father gives the revelations, not Heavenly Mother.  Heavenly Father sent his son to be his heir, not his daughter.  Heavenly Father has only ever restored priesthood authority to a man.  According to Joseph Smith only a man can establish the Church of God.  And so on...

 

The pattern is there, not than men are superior, but that they preside.  And that is so much more than historical misogyny.

[Rivers]

Men and women are equal as well as different. The two genders complete one another. They are Yin and Yang. Not one big blob of Yin.

[Rivers]

I think the danger of taking this subjective tack to scripture is we put ourselves in danger of losing the doctrine that led to the scripture. I certainly don't believe women are "inferior" to men but I believe that the scriptures are pretty clear about gender roles and who is the head of the family, and it appears to be patterned on how Heavenly Father operates based on every piece of evidence we have.

The simple evidence points to the fact that whatever equality men and women share, Heavenly Father gives the revelations, not Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Father sent his son to be his heir, not his daughter. Heavenly Father has only ever restored priesthood authority to a man. According to Joseph Smith only a man can establish the Church of God. And so on...

The pattern is there, not than men are superior, but that they preside. And that is so much more than historical misogyny.

Some of that language is still in the temple. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[JLHPROF]

Some of that language is still in the temple. I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

Exactly this:

“… Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles." - Joseph Smith

AND

"A man may act as proxy for his own relatives; the ordinances of the Gospel which were laid out before the foundations of the world have thus been fulfilled by them, and we may be baptized for those whom we have much friendship for; but it must first be revealed to the man of God, lest we should run too far."

 

The ordinances represent eternity and are eternal.  We can take that mean the order we now have was revealed from heaven.

[readstoomuch]

Neyland McBanes book Women at Church is great and her FairMormon podcast was the bomb. I think the message from both would to try and find ways unite with these sisters instead of further divisions-not an easy task.

[why me]

 

Kate Kelly is a historical curiosity to be sure, but hardly one worth our time.

Kate is not a historical curiosity. She is someone who belonged to a church which has only 14 million members worldwide who is attempting to give her radical feminist vision for that church. We need to keep it all in perspective. For the average person what she may say or not say really does not matter. It only matters to the members of that particular church she is attempting to transform. Thus, the tribune is a good vocal outlet for her and the tribune being the tribune is more than willing to give her the time to speak since utah has many mormons. And even in utah, since many church members are just trying to survive in their daily lives, really don't care either.

[why me]

Kate Kelly has become irrelevant by attempting to be relevant. It's sad because I suspect she would have had a lot to contribute had she taken I wiser tact.

Unfortunately, Kate has a PR problem with the women members outside the US. When one looks at kate, one gets the stereotypical look through dress and  uses of words of an american radical feminist. And this look and her words would be a turn off for most of the women who are members of the church in the world. Let me put it this way: since many members of the church are either former caltholics or former orthodox members, women receiving the priesthood is not an issue.

Edited September 11, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

Unfortunately, Kate has a PR problem with the women members outside the US. When one looks at kate, one gets the stereotypical look through dress and  uses words of an american radical feminist. And this look and her words would be a turn off for most of the women who are members of the church in the world. Let me put it this way: since many members of the church are either former caltholics or former orthodox members, women receiving the priesthood is not an issue.

 

I really wanted to stay out of this one, but please elaborate on Kate Kelly's stereotypical look through dress and word usage.  How does an American radical feminist look and dress?  I'd really like to know because it's very difficult to know who in my ward might be sympathetic to the cause of OW, but perhaps, I'm missing the signs.  Please help me develop my rad-femdar.

[why me]

I really wanted to stay out of this one, but please elaborate on Kate Kelly's stereotypical look through dress and word usage.  How does an American radical feminist look and dress?  I'd really like to know because it's very difficult to know who in my ward might be sympathetic to the cause of OW, but perhaps, I'm missing the signs.  Please help me develop my rad-femdar.

 

https://www.google.fi/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Zo4RVPqgNsHEYNO7gKgF&gws_rd=ssl#q=kate+kelly+photos

 

She fits the part when compared to the women who are also in the picture. One needs to have been around past feminists from the seventies and eighties to understand the stereotypical look.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lauradomenica/feminism-in-faith-mormonism#vjz2cx

 

 

 

 

 

The above photo is right out the feminist dress code of the 1970s. Maybe it is an eye glass problem and hair style. The dress is very much alike to the one below worn by gloria steinem. The memories came back to me.

 

.

Edited September 11, 2014 by why me